EU threaten to cut off vaccine supply to the UK 2

[Baileysforchristmas]

As the other thread is full

www.politico.eu/article/commission-proposes-six-week-vaccine-export-ban-amid-fears-of-trade-war/

The lawyers at AZ have been all over the contracts with a fine tooth comb, and so have the EU lawyers! I think it is fairly safe to say that the contract is not water tight, and if there were the smallest chance of a potential breach, we would absolutely be seeing the EU commission taking the AZ to court (three months ago in fact!)

If it were that easy the EU would not be risking their international reputation with the grubby and unedifying spectacle of strong arming AZ and by extension, the UK into giving up their own vaccines would they!
The EU would sit back smugly and let the EU lawyers make mincemeat of AZ. There would be no need to get their hands dirty with a smear campaign and all the rest that followed.

The legal route is something the EU have completely given up on TheMancunianCandidate because there is no case to answer - and moreover they have moved on to totally trashing the AZ for no reason, which is the most irresponsible action possible, and if I were the CEO we would be pulling out of the EU full stop, and they would get ZERO vaccines.

People keep repeating that the mere fact that the EU contract is with AstraZeneca AB means that they have no right to expect any deliveries from the UK plants mentioned in the contract.
If that were true (which I don't believe), could somebody please explain to me why you insist Halix should be part of the UK supply chain? How does that work, if the UK contract was with AstraZeneca UK and Halix is outside the UK? You can't have it both ways.

@Itsalonghaul

The lawyers at AZ have been all over the contracts with a fine tooth comb, and so have the EU lawyers! I think it is fairly safe to say that the contract is not water tight, and if there were the smallest chance of a potential breach, we would absolutely be seeing the EU commission taking the AZ to court (three months ago in fact!)

If it were that easy the EU would not be risking their international reputation with the grubby and unedifying spectacle of strong arming AZ and by extension, the UK into giving up their own vaccines would they!
The EU would sit back smugly and let the EU lawyers make mincemeat of AZ. There would be no need to get their hands dirty with a smear campaign and all the rest that followed.

The legal route is something the EU have completely given up on TheMancunianCandidate because there is no case to answer - and moreover they have moved on to totally trashing the AZ for no reason, which is the most irresponsible action possible, and if I were the CEO we would be pulling out of the EU full stop, and they would get ZERO vaccines.

Exactly.

Plus wrt redacted there is another version where you can read it

Curious the question isn't whether the contract contained those words - it undoubtedly does, as does the UK contract - but what those words required of AZ in terms of performance and location of production. This is a far from straightforward issue, particularly in the context of a contract that contains an express warranty (cl 13? if I recall correctly) that AZ was not subject to any conflicting obligations/obligations that might impede the performance of the contract. The legal position is not as straightforward as some on this thread seem to believe!

I wouldn’t claim I think it’s straightforward. Not least as no legal experience.

But I do think if a case could be made all the other avenues that have been so exhausted by EC for so long would have been added to with a legal process that added weight.

When the EU started saying morally obligation and not legal they knew they didn’t have a legal case.

@TheMancunianCandidate

Curious the question isn't whether the contract contained those words - it undoubtedly does, as does the UK contract - but what those words required of AZ in terms of performance and location of production. This is a far from straightforward issue, particularly in the context of a contract that contains an express warranty (cl 13? if I recall correctly) that AZ was not subject to any conflicting obligations/obligations that might impede the performance of the contract. The legal position is not as straightforward as some on this thread seem to believe!

If AZ AB had other contracts to supply other countries, then it is those contracts that should be scrutinised for conflict. Only contracts made between AZ AB and other countries are relevant.

The UK contract was with AZ UK.

These are two entirely separate legal entities.

@Guinan

People keep repeating that the mere fact that the EU contract is with AstraZeneca AB means that they have no right to expect any deliveries from the UK plants mentioned in the contract. If that were true (which I don't believe), could somebody please explain to me why you insist Halix should be part of the UK supply chain? How does that work, if the UK contract was with AstraZeneca UK and Halix is outside the UK? You can't have it both ways.

I can't even be bothered answering......

Go do some research. Look at the facts - not the media you want to believe with their reporting, but the actual facts. You know these are important right.......

There is more than enough facts out there to answer your question.

@Guinan

People keep repeating that the mere fact that the EU contract is with AstraZeneca AB means that they have no right to expect any deliveries from the UK plants mentioned in the contract. If that were true (which I don't believe), could somebody please explain to me why you insist Halix should be part of the UK supply chain? How does that work, if the UK contract was with AstraZeneca UK and Halix is outside the UK? You can't have it both ways.

As I understand it, it is possible for companies to retain ownership of property during the manufacturing process.

If AZ UK sends culture to Halix and contracts with Halix that the vaccine produced from that culture remains the property of AZ UK then that would explain why it is part of the UK supply chain.

We haven't seen that contract, but its a reasonable explanation.

@Guinan

People keep repeating that the mere fact that the EU contract is with AstraZeneca AB means that they have no right to expect any deliveries from the UK plants mentioned in the contract. If that were true (which I don't believe), could somebody please explain to me why you insist Halix should be part of the UK supply chain? How does that work, if the UK contract was with AstraZeneca UK and Halix is outside the UK? You can't have it both ways.

It will depend on whether Halix is owned by AZ AB, AZ UK or a different AZ entity. It could well be that Halix is part of the AZ UK supply chain and not part of the AZ AB chain. I don’t know if this is the case, just pointing out that it doesn’t need to physically be in the UK to fulfil a UK contract.

[quote MRex]@Haffiana - here is the redacted UK-AZ contract: www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/2ce928f2-0e8b-48cd-b0e7-bccff514d281.
There are additional terms in the separate licensing agreement (not published) that both UK government and Pascal Soriot statements (at the time and since) suggest include the preferential supply to the UK. So this doesn't actually tell you everything.[/quote]
I linked the redacted UK contract back on page 6 (and previous thread I believe). Here it is again.

To be honest the cynic in me thinks that all the outrage from UVdL et.al. stems from them thinking they had pulled a fast one on the UK whereby their contract gave the EU priority access to UK produced vaccines - and then discovering that they did not.

"If AZ AB had other contracts to supply other countries, then it is those contracts that should be scrutinised for conflict. Only contracts made between AZ AB and other countries are relevant."

We will have to agree to disagree! Certainly as a matter of English law, I would argue cl 13 should be construed to cover both, as otherwise the clause lacks commercial utility.

Much of the criticism of the EU on this thread is premised on the assumption that AZ is not in breach of contract. I think it is worth recognising that this is an assumption and not a known fact. I wonder if the criticism would be quite so vociferous if the opposite assumption were made - that AZ is in breach?

@FleeingBlue

To be honest the cynic in me thinks that all the outrage from UVdL et.al. stems from them thinking they had pulled a fast one on the UK whereby their contract gave the EU priority access to UK produced vaccines - and then discovering that they did not.

Another way of saying this would be that they were misled by AZ!

@TheMancunianCandidate

Curious the question isn't whether the contract contained those words - it undoubtedly does, as does the UK contract - but what those words required of AZ in terms of performance and location of production. This is a far from straightforward issue, particularly in the context of a contract that contains an express warranty (cl 13? if I recall correctly) that AZ was not subject to any conflicting obligations/obligations that might impede the performance of the contract. The legal position is not as straightforward as some on this thread seem to believe!

No. But as the EU is not taking legal recourse as per the contract the likelihood is too that they cannot. Why all the fuss otherwise?

Oh, and the impedance part was also discussed a lot and the general consensus, amongst the legal discussions, was that it couldn't apply to extant contracts and/or that the penalities in the UK contract made it more likely to be fulfilled.

Again, which is why this shit show started!

Put at it's simplest: if there were any legal recourse why was it not taken? Why was the whole disparage and wreck it course taken?

OK - here goes...... in summary:

UK invests large sum on a risk/reward basis to Oxford/AZ
UK pay upfront for x amount of vaccines at cost
UK supports developement of production facilities
UK government underwrites liability for harm from vaccine
UK Gov agencies, MHRA and AZ sit around the same table for expediency, cut out huge swathes of bureaucracy, get job done
UK therefore gets first refusal of vaccines produced

EC invests nothing up front
EC pay nothing up front
EC haggle over price of "at cost" product
EC have yet to pay for what they have had already delivered
EC threatening legal action and witholding payment
EC haven't underwritten risk of harm
EC and EMA (and 27 nations health regulators) and AZ compete as separate entities for their own fiefdoms

Shouting into that bucket again 😁

I wonder if the criticism would be quite so vociferous if the opposite assumption were made - that AZ is in breach?

Maybe AZ is in breach. In that case, why have the EU not simply referred the matter to their lawyers? Wouldn't it be possible to get an injunction to prevent vaccines being exported while the matter is thrashed out in court?

Instead the EU, and various EU members, have:
Bad mouthed the vaccine - to the detriment of their own vaccination programme;
Bad mouthed AZ;
Bad mouthed the UK;
Triggered, or threatened to trigger Article 16;
Threatened to seize intellectual property;
Carried out police raids on premises.

Why do any of that if taking legal action would resolve the issue?

@TheMancunianCandidate - you really need to read both contracts. The UK contract places responsibility on AZ subsidiaries and affiliates. It also clearly states in the introduction of the UK agreement:
"B) The Purchaser through a Central Government Body is a third party beneficiary of certain rights granted in its favour under the Licence Agreement."
The contract signed by EC is only with Astrazeneca AB and is best reasonable efforts.
The part of the process that failed for EC counts as a raw material in the UK contract and as such is treated differently for delivery failure; that bit's redacted in the EC contract but worth reading in the UK one.

It's a real shame that there have been delays in the process, but let's be clear here; EVERY pharmaceutical company producing vaccine has faced initial delays and EVERY country has had delayed delivery. We should all be marvelling that we've got to this position where vaccines that work are being created in their millions and have a little patience with the bits that aren't working. The UK, USA and India have all managed to see delay in the initial scale-up process yet continue praising and encouraging the companies as they go through this really hard stage. Why are the EU countries the only ones that seemingly don't understand how incredibly challenging this is? Is it just because they didn't get involved early enough, nor deeply enough, to understand what this whole process has taken by way of effort from everyone else? Or is it just an arse-covering exercise because they have only just realised other countries did make "best reasonable efforts" to help this succeed and their production is delayed because they did not?

@TheMancunianCandidate - Another way of saying this would be that they were misled by AZ!

So you mean that AZ AB led the EU to believe that the EU contract was specifically written so as to effectively deny UK made vaccine to UK citizens until the EU contract was fulfilled in full - and therefore it's AZ AB's fault that it didn't?

Ergo we agree that it may have been the intention that the EU hoped their contract would give them all supply from EU and UK production before any one else. Possibly leaving the UK with no UK vaccine produced in the UK for months .... ?

@Guinan suggested before that this would be ridiculous. Maybe not.

Is it just because they didn't get involved early enough, nor deeply enough, to understand what this whole process has taken by way of effort from everyone else? Or is it just an arse-covering exercise because they have only just realised other countries did make "best reasonable efforts" to help this succeed and their production is delayed because they did not?

Both, in spades.

The situation with the Indian supply bears repeated comparison, doesn't it?

The UK at the same disadvantage as the EU and they...

a) disparage company and country alike
b) sit back and mumble quietly
c) publicly praise efforts of company and country alike and reassure the public

Mmmm!

Right to legal action

The contract makes clear the Commission and EU countries can't sue the drugmaker for a host of issues, most notably if there are "delays in delivery of the Vaccine under this Agreement."

The EU contract also says the Commission can't sue if there are any unforeseen issues with the safety or efficacy of the vaccine, or if there are problems with the storage, transport or administration of the vaccine.

The only exception is if AstraZeneca fails to meet "Good Manufacturing Practices," or if a claim "arises from AstraZeneca's wilful misconduct or failure to comply with EU regulatory requirement."

That’s why the EU are trying to prove wilful misconduct. The EU knew there maybe issues why would they waiver their right to sue if there were delays?

It was reported that when Kate Bingham and her team were advised of production delays they responded with offers to supply whatever was needed to help.
The EC response has been to mudsling and threaten.
Amazed AZ are still on board with them.

That they put themselves on the line with this and that their reputation is being traduced for reasons that include lies, obfuscation, politicking and fear.

Perhaps AZ should sue the EU, for slander!